I want to question the assumption here that "pioneer mindset" is an inherited trait, and generally whether we can say anything useful about people living today based on the choices of their ancestors several generations back.
People emigrated from Europe to America because they were out of options. It was not a case of throwing away all of your possessions to go on an adventure. Rather, the vast majority emigrated because it was literally the only way to move up in a world where land ownership was the key to wealth, and your older brother already inherited the farm, or your family did not own any land in the first place. Or perhaps you couldn't even find an apprenticeship.
Keep in mind that all of Europe existed in an extremely rigid social hierarchy with practically zero mobility. Most people in Europe lived in abject poverty. America offered some social mobility, at least to those who came there by choice.
> want to question the assumption here that "pioneer mindset" is an inherited trait
About half the variation in personality traits is biologically heritable: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-55834023. Even political ideology is moderately heritable: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S23521...
On top of that, there’s social transmission of values within families. Much of the country descends from 20th century immigrants, where the effect of the immigrant generation is still prominent. Much of the rest of the country descends from people who left their civilized east coast and settled the frontier.
> Rather, the vast majority emigrated because it was literally the only way to move up in a world where land ownership was the key to wealth
This isn’t any different in much of asia or africa today. Most people are content with their place in the world without abandoning all their kinship ties to “move up.”
Yes, thank you. A huge percentage of historical European immigration to the US was by groups that functionally had zero wealth or social mobility in their home countries. Working in a steel mill in the new world was hell, but it beat generational rural poverty back home.
The hyper-individualism of modern America is something that has developed fairly recently, even if it had earlier roots.
You cannot read the Founding Fathers without noticing that Americans were quite individualistic (and mistrustful of governmental power) from the start of the country. Till about 1910, there was no Federal income tax because it was believed by most Americans that it would be unconstitutional (i.e., an illegal encroachment of the individual's right to keep all the money he or she earns). Ditto any Federal ban on heroin or cocaine, both big social problems.
Individualism in the contemporary sense is not the same thing as skepticism of governmental power circa 1780.
Income taxes as a concept weren't really adopted, globally, until the mid-1800s through the early 1900s. So I don't think skepticism of them is inherently an American individualist thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#Timeline_of_intro...
And as I already wrote:
> The hyper-individualism of modern America is something that has developed fairly recently, even if it had earlier roots.
America circa 1950 or 1900 had much stronger social bonds in local communities, families, etc. The current hyper-individualism is more a consequence of the last third of the 20th century, not anything inherently American.
Of course, one might make the argument that this was some kind of inevitable outcome due to a seed in the American psyche, but I don't really buy that argument.
The 1960s was when the US got welfare and SSI (disability insurance for people who haven't already paid into the Social Security system).
Being able to rely on these governmental benefits might have made families less reliant on the local community, churches and extended family, which in turn might have caused daily life to feel more alienating or atomized.
I bring this up because welfare and SSI can be viewed as a move towards collectivism and away from individualism, so arguing about how individualistic the US has been over time is kind of a sterile game because the answer is highly dependent on the exact definition of individualism.
> I bring this up because welfare and SSI can be viewed as a move towards collectivism and away from individualism
Yes, this is an excellent point.
A good portion emigrated because it was either that or the gallows. Another portion - possibly those that you referred to with the 'by choice' bit was imported as so much cattle to be used and abused. Slavery powered a lot of engines in those days and even if those European ancestors washed their hands of it in Europe at the time their descendants had no problem at all setting it up in what would become the USA as well as they folks 'back home' profiting immensely from it. Here in NL they are still to a large extent in denial about it. And that spirit is also still alive and well in the USA.
I think the commenters above were mostly talking about late 19th century immigration by Irish, Italian, etc. workers in the post-Civil War era.
It's still true that the pay and conditions were awful, but it was clearly something people chose to do.
The group that descends from enslaved people brought here involuntarily also has by far the highest levels of group identity and support for redistributive policies. So that supports my point.
Hey man, everything supports your point so I don't think I'm surprised by that.
ICE deportations without due process: check -> supports Rayiner's point
Massive and ongoing violations of the US constitution: check -> supports Rayiner's point
Immigrants and their descendants voting against immigration: check -> supports Rayiner's point
Troops deployed to cities that were doing no worse than other cities but happened to be run by democrats: check -> supports Rayiner's point
Taking a sledgehammer to the federal government without any consideration for the consequences: check -> supports Rayiner's point
I wonder at what moment - if ever - you will look around and say 'Hey, you know what, I'm co-responsible for this mess and I own up to it'. I don't know if you have a daughter or not but if not we'll substitute some other female relative. Let's imagine for the moment that you do and you get the choice of leaving her in a room for a couple of days with Trump, Biden or Harris which would you pick? And if not Trump, why not, after all, what's there to fear, he's an upstanding citizens that any self respecting lawyer would vote for. There are plenty of MAGA's who are just too stupid to know better after a couple of decades on FOX and AM talk radio, so they get a pass, in spite of all the damage that they do.
But guys that clerked for the US court of appeals are held to a higher standard.
There is this proverb: a country gets the government that it deserves. Now, I have a crap government here at the moment, but at least I'm not responsible for voting it in and cheering it on while they do their crap and I still feel responsible just by being from here and the fact that they - unfortunately - represent me too.
> you get the choice of leaving her in a room for a couple of days with Trump, Biden or Harris which would you pick?
I don’t know how this is relevant to what we were discussing, but yes, I have a daughter. And one of my principal fears was how much social pressure she would feel to relate to Harris, a shallow mediocrity who might have been greater if everyone didn’t have the lowest possible expectations for her on account of identity politics.
If you have a daughter and you voted for trump, you deserve this version of trump to “be around” YOUR daughter.
https://youtu.be/OhDuL7LrLEc?feature=shared
https://youtu.be/Q0_axTST2aY?feature=shared
You dodged the question.
And so you voted for the greedy, utterly corrupt criminal instead. I really wonder how you could come to this utterly bizarre conclusion. Trump isn't an example for anybody, least of all your kids, and god forbid they'd look at a woman that made it to president and think that that might be something to aspire to. Incredible.
EDIT: I wrote a bunch of stuff, but realized Glenn Loury said it a thousand times better: https://x.com/nashvilletea/status/1961683711511969904?s=46. Watch to the very end: “You will not be equal at the end of that argument, even if you get what you ask for.” I almost felt bad for Harris after the election. It became obvious how few people actually respected her as a leader. They installed her as a generic “woman of color” because it made them feel good and like they were achieving a milestone in the “arc of history.” It’s pitiable, not admirable.
I raise my kids the way my dad raised me—and how white elites raise their own kids, in contrast to how they see brown kids: to always have an internal locus of control, never make excuses, and never demand society’s protection or accommodation.
> It became obvious how few people actually respected her as a leader. They installed her as a generic “woman of color” because it made them feel good and like they were achieving a milestone in the “arc of history.”
Yes, obviously she didn't get there because of merit... unbelievable this exchange.
So your main point is that Harris, who was in the spot to become president for all of four years if something happened to Biden, was only there as a generic woman of color? This is in a way a worse insult than if it had been just jealousy. Do you honestly believe that the slob you voted for is there on merit? And never mind his sidekick? Harris has more merit than either of those two grifters combined.
For your sake I hope that one day you're going to snap out of the groove that you are in. But by the looks of it the more likely end game is that you will dig yourself in further and further until there really is no way back.
Just for a 10 minute exercise: imagine you are wrong about all this and that in a decade you look back at the end result. Then realize that there is such a thing as minimization of regret and that this radicalization path that you - as you admitted yourself - are on does not offer any outs other than ever more convoluted rationalizations which your original self from just a few years ago would have been horrified at. The reason I keep talking to you is because I hope that somewhere in there the guy that we knew before he went off into the woods is still there and is still able to use common sense instead of the sense that words on paper matter more than people. Probably I'm the idiot though and I should just give up on you.
> So your main point is that Harris, who was in the spot to become president for all of four years if something happened to Biden, was only there as a generic woman of color?
Being a "woman of color" was Biden's stated reason for picking Harris. She has no merit as a political leader--someone who is able to inspire people to action. She had to drop out of the race in 2019 being she was polling terribly in her home state: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/kamala-harris-califo.... Listen to the post-mortems of 2024 being done by folks Mark Halpern. Biden's own team thought that Harris wasn't ready.
I saw her in person at an Asian American fundraising event in Iowa in 2019. It was just her and Andrew Yang. She gave a canned speech and ran to her tour bus and hid after the event. She was awful. Given Biden's age, the obviously correct play in 2020 was to nominate Elizabeth Warren, who is a gifted populist politician. I saw her in 2019 as well, and people were literally crying when they would meet her to take selfies. Harris, meanwhile, was hiding in her bus, because she's awkward and doesn't actually like crowds.
Everything was out there for anyone whose eyes were open to see. But the party is full of weirdos who are obsessed with skin color--like how you couldn't help but bring slavery and colonialism into this unrelated discussion--and they nominated her because it was part of "the arc of history." It brings me endless joy that this view forced them into a course of action that cost them so dearly, and so quickly.
> Do you honestly believe that the slob you voted for is there on merit?
In a Presidential system, "merit" is being able to win over and lead a coalition of voters. That's what made Bill Clinton and Barack Obama extraordinary politicians. Trump has merit in the same way. Trump took over one of the two major parties, overthrew its establishment, and made it so someone named "Bush" can't even win an election for dog catcher in Texas. Whatever else you think about him, he's an incredibly gifted politician, while Harris is a terrible one.
> It brings me endless joy that this view forced them into a course of action that cost them so dearly, and so quickly.
Yes, you fit right in. Think about what you just wrote.
> Whatever else you think about him, he's an incredibly gifted politician, while Harris is a terrible one.
He's a gifted agitator, he's not a gifted politician. A gifted politician knows how to govern, and build consensus, Trump is completely clueless (or hiding it remarkably well). His main shticks are division and destruction, not unification and creation.
So if you are looking to bring about hardship and chaos you did the right thing by voting for him.
Europe and particularly the UK is still extremely rigid, and I fear to until the bitter end. You have a government right now riddled with aristocrats ignoring the electorate. I fear for my family living in Manchester and London.